Morning Feature – The Fox Effect, Part II: The Fox Party

In November 2008, many thought the Republican Party had collapsed. Two years later, such theories were a distant memory. (More)

The Fox Effect, Part II: The Fox Party

This week Morning Feature looks at the just-released book The Fox Effect, by David Brock, Ari Ravin-Havt, and the staff at Media Matters for America. Yesterday we considered the Fox News motto ‘Fair & Balanced’ through conservative frames. Today we examine their emerging role as a Republican Party campaign organization. Tomorrow we conclude with Fox News’ consistent and too-often effective six-step strategy for attacking opponents, including the authors and Media Matters.

Mark Twain was not dead in May of 1897. He wasn’t even ill. A cousin had been ill and, as Twain famously penned, “The report of my illness grew out of his illness. The report of my death was an exaggeration.”

In November 2008, the Republican Party seemed in disarray. President Obama had won a 365-vote Electoral College landslide. Having taken the House and split the Senate in 2006, Democrats in 2009 held 257 House seats and would hold 58 seats in the Senate after Al Franken’s victory in Minnesota was confirmed. Independent Senators Bernie Sanders (VT) and Joe Lieberman (CT) caucused with Democrats, suggesting a “filibuster-proof supermajority.” Max Blumenthal’s Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party was one of many epitaphs describing a party that had fallen from holding the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2003 to seeming irrelevance in just six years.

Unlike Twain, the Republican Party was ill. But like Twain, the reports of its death were exaggerated. In the next two years, Republicans would stall and weaken the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Acts. They would block the Employee Free Choice Act, and any meaningful legislation on immigration or climate change. And while Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would be repealed, that would happen only in a lame duck session and in exchange for continuing the 2001 Bush tax cuts … after a midterm “red tide” swept Republicans into control of the U.S. House and into governors’ mansions and state legislatures across the U.S.

Some of that GOP recovery owed to exaggerated interpretations of the 2006 and 2008 elections. Some of it was merely statistical regression toward the mean, boosted by technical factors such as the number of seats in play for each party. Some of it voters’ sincere frustration with a still-anemic economy. But some of it was a real political rebound, driven in large part by the emergence of Fox News as a Republican Party campaign organization.

“I’m gonna start organizing.”

Thus announced CNBC reporter Rick Santelli in his now-famous rant against the stimulus bill on February 19, 2009. Santelli decried the “moral hazard” of proposals to aid distressed homeowners, and called for a “Chicago Tea Party” to protest the Obama administration.

The network was caught off guard as well. Despite advocating a pro-business point of view, CNBC was no place for rowdy activists. Indeed, it depended on its reputation as a high-minded business network to maintain its elevated ad rates based on catering to an elite market. Investors who were often glued to CNBC did not want bombastic political commentary mixed with the news while the markets were open.

Instead, Fox News picked up the Tea Party banner:

When CNBC quashed Santelli’s activism, Fox News was ready to pounce. As conservative activists began to schedule Tea Parties across the country, the network became their primary organizing and promotional agent. In the months following Santelli’s original rant, Fox News aired scores of promos and segments on the movement, and even graphics declaring the events “[Fox News Channel] Tax Day Tea Parties.”

Like the Iraq War protests of 2003 and the Occupy movement of 2011, the Tea Party movement included tens of thousands of grassroots activists. But unlike the Iraq War or Occupy protests, the Tea Party movement had a major cable news network as a sponsor and publicist. In August 2009, as members of the House and Senate went home to meet with constituents and discuss the proposed health care reform bills, Fox News encouraged Tea Party groups to flock to the town halls and shout down other speakers. In contrast to polls – which showed strong support for health care reform – videos of rowdy town halls suggested a nation united in outrage against a “government takeover of health care.”

The Affordable Care Act passed in February 2010, but the Tea Party had revived the Republican Party … and Fox News had taken center stage in the party power structure.

If people are kind of fed up with the way things are going, they can go to BrownForUSSenate.com, and they can make a difference and they can stop the business as usual – not only in Massachusetts, but more important, nationally.

Thus began what the authors describe as “a glorified telethon” for Brown. As they note:

While other networks discouraged candidates from explicitly promoting their websites or fund-raising on the air, no such rules existed at Fox News.

“How can I help you raise money?”

Brown wasn’t the first candidate for whom Fox News had raised funds. In 2009, New York congressional candidate Doug Hoffman, New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie, and Virginia gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell were given a total of 16 interviews and almost two hours of air time. In each appearance, the candidates asked viewers for contributions. As their elections neared, the network also directed viewers to virtual phone-banks for the candidates.

Nor would Brown be the last such candidate, as the authors report:

Over the course of the 2010 election cycle, more than thirty Fox News employees endorsed, raised funds, or campaigned for over three hundred Republican candidates and organizations.

Now all that was left was the counting. For two years, Fox had worked toward this moment. It had served as the communications hub of the Republican Party, contributed more than two million dollars and raised tens of millions more, and used the Tea Parties to build a movement that supplied bodies for the Republican field operation. Now it was time to see the fruits of that labor materialize.

The media wrote about the impact of the Tea Party, and the revival of the Republican Party.

16 Comments

addisnana
on February 24, 2012 at 7:55 am

Does the FCC have any standards about how one uses the spectrum when one calls oneself ‘news.’ ? I have read this twice and I keep thinking, “Can this be right?” It feels wrong in so many ways that I guess I want it to be illegal. 🙄

winterbanyan
on February 24, 2012 at 8:14 am

I want it to be illegal, too. There was a time when the FCC had an “equal time” rule for political candidates. They ditched it a long time ago. I’m pretty sure I know who to blame.

NCrissieB
on February 24, 2012 at 8:35 am

I’m not an expert on campaign laws as they apply to media outlets, but the authors neither say nor imply that Fox News broke any federal or state laws by campaigning for Republican candidates. However, most other networks’ and most newspapers’ internal policies prohibit such activities. Fox News was so blatantly partisan that Jon Stewart congratulated Chris Wallace for the GOP victories:

As we’ll see tomorrow, the spread of that narrative has had some effect.

Good morning! ::hugggggs::

winterbanyan
on February 24, 2012 at 8:12 am

Considering the difficulties Stephen Colbert ran into from his network when he formed a PAC, because Comedy Central feared it could get into trouble for appearing to give free air time to a political cause (via Stephen), even a joking one, I’m surprised there is no legal restraint on what Fox is doing.

Of course Colbert got around it: he formed a Super PAC. So why isn’t Fox listed as a Super PAC? It would make things so much clearer….

I don’t know whether this rule also applies to air time spent interviewing candidates who promote their fund-raising sites … or whether it applies to Fox News hosts who appear off-air at candidate or party fund-raisers.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission’s view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.

That’s also why, if you’re watching a movie released by 20th Century Fox and the movie includes scenes of TV news coverage, the news channel portrayed in the movie will almost always be a Fox affiliate or Fox News. It’s partly product placement … and partly not having to negotiate for image rights.

Good morning! ::hugggggs::

LI Mike
on February 25, 2012 at 9:11 am

The criticism against MSNBC is that it has become the Democratic Party news program. not even close compared to Fox.

NCrissieB
on February 25, 2012 at 9:18 am

MSNBC does not allow Democratic candidates to announce their websites or solicit funds on the air, nor does MSNBC allow their hosts to participate in political fundraising efforts or even contribute to political campaigns. As you say, Mike, idea that MSNBC is “the Democratic Party Fox News” is demonstrably false.